[news] Sco declares the Linux GPL invalid.

Lo que te dije en su día: esto parece Falcon Crest

Un saludo
Fernando Reyes [MS MVP]

(Deshazte de los dos guiris si quieres escribirme)

Visita news://marcmcoll.net cortesía de Marc Martínez Coll

JM Tella Llop [MS MVP] · escribió en
:

SCO WILL attempt to win its $3 billion case against IBM by arguing
that the General Public Licence (GPL) is invalid. That's what a

Yo creo que este argumento si que no lo gana SCO, aun que definitivamente
sirve para hacer mas ruido

Es cierto que la ley permite solamente una copia de seguridad de cualquier
software en USA,
Pero si el autor declara explicitamente libertad en el copiado no hay
argumento de terceras partes al respecto
desde que SCO nunca ha participado su producto como GPL no hay argumento de
el para presentar desde que no se considera
afectado por este parrafo en particular,
Cabe recordar que en USA el copiado Ilegal o Infringimento de derechos de
Autor NO se persigue de Oficio,
Por lo que solo bajo demanda se puede confrontar al inculpado, si la
comunidad libre ha especificado que su producto es GPL
y no hay algun autor que se queje de lo contrario simplemente no hay caso
que seguir.



Saludos
Mr Big Dragon


"JM Tella Llop [MS MVP] ·" wrote in message
news:
SCO WILL attempt to win its $3 billion case against IBM by arguing that the
General Public Licence (GPL) is invalid. That's what a pleader at legal
practice Boies Schiller and Flexner is telling the Wall Street Journal
today. The GPL licence allows software and work derived from it to be copied
by anyone at no charge.

But according to today's WSJ, quoting lawyer Mark Heise, the GPL is
pre-empted by US federal copyright law.How does that work then? According to
Heise, federal law only lets people make a single backup copy of software,
and that makes the GPL void under US law. Seems like a bloody flimsy
argument to us, but in the topsy-turvy Alice in Wonderland world of law, who
knows what characters might suddenly turn into wild cards? In effect,
Heise's argument seems to be that you have to have copyright on software
even if you insist that your software is not copyrighted. D'oh.

Of course GPL software is copyright and only public domain works,
apparently, lack copyright protection, maybe. The GPL specifically makes use
of copyright holders' authority to grant the right to copy authorisations.
Effectively, GPL does not remove the copyright of the original author, it
instead allows the work to be freely distributed as long as the
distributions and works derived from them are also made available under the
licence.

If SCO's pleaders win this one, then surely it is guilty of massive
copyright infringement too? And if they do, then surely it must apply to BSD
and Apache style licences as well?

Has the whole world gone stark staring bonkers? [Yes. Ed.]

News source: http://www.theinquirer.net/

Jose Manuel Tella Llop
MS MVP - DTS


Este mensaje se proporciona "como está" sin garantías de ninguna clase, y no
otorga ningún derecho.

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
You assume all risk for your use.